What's your call?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: What's your call?

IMO, 225 does not apply, neither does 230. The pole is now under "double management", and since it is, 225.30(d) nor 225.30(e) can be applied. That this installation shall not be allowed.
 
Re: What's your call?

This is a lease issue. What does the bank need lighting for anyways, its closed at nite and open durring the day. Let the resturuant pay for it they are the ones that actually gain any benefit from the lighting. In my opinion, if they wanted to go the route of two seperate lighting branch circuits for the fixtures, and if I was the bank, I would put my fixtures on a timer :) untill they decide to get with the program and take the whole fixture.

And I wouldn't consider the pole a structure, and you can't call two lighitng branch circuits out to the pole two "Services." Its not like the contractor is going to install a 2 service disconnects and meters at the pole base. Thats not what we are talking about.

[ September 02, 2004, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: bonding jumper ]
 
Re: What's your call?

I wouldn't consider the pole a structure
Click to expand...
Code: 
 Structure. That which is built or constructed.
I would have to say that it is.

230 doesn't apply since it is not a service. 225.30 doesn't either.
 
Re: What's your call?

We need to consider the facts.
First this is a structure,there is no getting past this part.
And where ever it gets power is a supply source.
Can anyone justify by code a reason to allow 2 sources ?
 
Re: What's your call?

Originally posted by jimwalker:
Can anyone justify by code a reason to allow 2 sources ?
Click to expand...
Jim it does not work that way, you need a code section to prohibit an installation.

I thought Dave had one with 230 but now I see I was mistaken. :(
 
Re: What's your call?

Bob,
You weren't mistaken, don't be mislead.

The only way (A) thru (E) applies is if it meets this requirement first.

225.30 Number of Supplies.
Where more than one building or other structure is on the same property and under single management,......
Click to expand...
Which it does not.

Don,
The "service" stops where the premises wiring system starts. Article 230 stops where the premises wiring starts.
Click to expand...
As far as 230, the same simplistic logic should apply here.
A building or other structure served shall be supplied by only one service...
Click to expand...
Please explain how this pole could be supplied from two separate buildings with separate services respectively and not be covered under 230.
 
Re: What's your call?

Dave this entire thread has shaken my confidence in my ability to read, interpret and apply the code. :D

Bob
 
Re: What's your call?

Dave,
Please explain how this pole could be supplied from two separate buildings with separate services respectively and not be covered under 230.
Click to expand...
Because the conductors that serve the pole are not "service conductors". Service conductors do not exist on the load side of the service disconnect. Article 230's jurisdiction stops at the service disconnect. This installation is in no stretch a "service" as defined in the NEC and 230 does not apply.
After you pointed out the wording in the beginning of 225.30, I don't think that there is a current code rule that applies to this installation.
Don
 
Re: What's your call?

Don
That is what I in my futile way was trying to say. The NEC cannot account for every type of installation, and this is where 90.4 really comes to play.

I am curious - what would the voltage be between the two phase legs at the light pole, from the two different sources?
 
Re: What's your call?

Pierre how can 90.4 change the lack of NEC rules.

When I read 90.4 I see

has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules.
Click to expand...
What I see in this part of 90.4 is that the AHJ has responsibility for approving equipment and materials not methods.


By special permission, the authority having jurisdiction may waive specific requirements in this Code or permit alternative methods where it is assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety.
Click to expand...
Here I see it says the AHJ can waive requirements.

I do not see that 90.4 allows the AHJ / Inspector to prohibit wiring methods that the rest of the code is silent on.

You see white I see black. ;)

Bob
 
Re: What's your call?

Don,

I see your point as to the subject matter in 230.
However, I maintain that the broad context of the article is to limit the number of different sources of power to as few as possible for the main purpose of a safer wiring system.

I agree that there are many areas of the code that are in need of refinement, this being one of them.

Would you agree that if you were in the position to approve or disapprove this installation, you would not approve it?

Pierre, maybe this fits better:
110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.
(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated:
(1) Suitability for installation and use in conformity with the provisions of this Code
(8) Other factors that contribute to the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact with the equipment.
Click to expand...
 
Re: What's your call?

Dave,
However, I maintain that the broad context of the article is to limit the number of different sources of power to as few as possible for the main purpose of a safer wiring system.
Click to expand...
The context of the article is limited by the scope. I see no way that 230 can be extended to cover something like this.
230.1 Scope. This article covers service conductors and equipment for control and protection of services and their installation requirements.
Click to expand...
As far as approving this installation, I really don't have a problem with it. I don't see any change in the safety of the installation as far as the general public is concerned. There is an increase in the hazard for an electrician who is not paying attention to what he is doing, but I don't see this as a significant risk. The most I would ask for is a label or sign on the outside and inside of the hand hole cover and maybe on the fixture wiring compartment.
Don
 
Re: What's your call?

Originally posted by pierre: I am curious - what would the voltage be between the two phase legs at the light pole, from the two different sources?
Click to expand...
Just for an illustration, let?s assume that both buildings are served at 480/277 volts, and that the lights are 277 volts. Let?s also assume that the two lighting branch circuits are on different phases. Then you have a phase to phase situation, from essentially the same utility source (not quite true, but close enough for this discussion). Therefore, the voltage difference between the two lamps is 480 volts, the phase-to-phase value.
 
Re: What's your call?

Of course there could be nearly zero volts between the lamps, if they are on the same phase. But the odds are 2 to 1 against that. And if you turn off one breaker, thinking you turned off the pole, you would now have 277 volts between the two lamps.

This is not the kind of installation that is likely to require design drawings signed and sealed by a PE. But I would not sign them. It?s a bad idea, no matter what a code official might be willing to allow, based on his (or her) interpretation of the code.
 
Re: What's your call?

I have seen sealed prints for wall-mart plaza?s for example locally hear where you have four fixtures on one pole. One of the four are served from the owner of the plazas house panel and the three other fixtures served from the tenants panel. The house panels fixtures are also serving as night lights for the parking lot I don?t see the difference in this and the discussion here.

[ September 03, 2004, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: david ]
 
Re: What's your call?

because all of the fixtures are coming from Walmarts Plaza not (1) from Walmart and (3) from K-mart.
 
Re: What's your call?

Posted by iwire:

Jim it does not work that way, you need a code section to prohibit an installation.
Click to expand...
I thought it was the other way. You are only allowed to do what is permitted by the code. But I must admit, I really don't know. Could we get a third or 4th opinion on this?
:)

Steve
 
Re: What's your call?

Steve,
If everything that we can do was in the code book, the book would be 10,000+ pages. I agree with Bob, if it doesn't say you can't do it, then you can.
Don

[ September 03, 2004, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]
 
Re: What's your call?

Actually it is a plaza wall-mart is the largest tenant that?s why it is called wall-mart plaza. You have wall mart with say 20 poles in their section of the parking lot those fixtures are off their utility bill. Then you have a strip plaza with ten other tenants staples kings, a dollar store cell phone and you get the picture. The house panel feeds the night lights in wall-marts section of the parking lot and all the other poles in the plaza but wall-mart panels feeds all of their poles. In that section of the parking lot you have two branch circuits in each pole one from wal-mar?s and one from the house panel the house panel is a 200 yards from the wal-mart?s panel

So I don?t see the difference in this set up and the one presented here for discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top